December 8, 2008

1 In 5 Cars Has A Personality Disorder

The other 4 cars are now completely fine, thanks to early intervention.

I. The New York Times: "1 in 5 People Has A Personality Disorder"

Almost one in five young American adults has a personality disorder that interferes with everyday life, and even more abuse alcohol or drugs, researchers reported Monday in the most extensive study of its kind.

And the article then becomes a list of every cliche and conflation possible.  Though the article is about personality disorders, they then lament  how common "mental problems" in college are, and the need for further treatment.  One psychiatrist found the "widespread lack of treatment worrisome... it should alert not only ''students and parents, but also deans and people who run college mental health services about the need to extend access to treatment.''

Here is awesomeness:

Dr. Sharon Hirsch, a University of Chicago psychiatrist not involved in the study, praised it for raising awareness about the problem and the high numbers of affected people who don't get help.

Imagine if more than 75 percent of diabetic college students didn't get treatment, Hirsch said. ''Just think about what would be happening on our college campuses.''

Are we still talking about personality disorders? 

It has the obligatory references to the Virginia Tech and other shootings.  I seem to remember everyone's insistence that those were not due to personality disorders?

Well, I can see that the the current crop of adults, age 35-60, I so admire for leading our country into moral, economic, and intellectual greatness, have accurately identified one of the most pressing problems today.  Nothing worse than an alcohol abusing, personality disordered college kid.  Exactly what Allan Bloom would have thought, or, more accurately, exactly what they think Allan Bloom would have thought, as they can't be bothered to find out.


The NYT is a blog pretending to be a newspaper.  It's for adults, or people who want to pretend they're adults, who remember as kids that reading the Times meant something that they'd now like to apply to themselves.   Now it's Bandwagon of the Month reporting: anyone see any global warming articles recently?  Bush is suppressing them, I guess.

So the problems it describes must always be of the form: "the other guys who are not you are bad."  That's widely perceived as liberal bias, though that's not accurate.  It's "not you" bias. The online readership is 37 years old, print 42-- this is the demographic that says, 'College kids are weak and pampered, if I could only go back to college and do it all over again..."  What?  Get a physics degree, or date sorority girls?  Or both?


The article's conflation of  "personality disorders" with every other kind of mental illness is a hint that an agenda is lurking.  That a popular press article would even bring them up-- previously, everything was bipolar or schizophrenia and not personality disorders (think Virginia Tech)-- means that an agenda is lurking.

That the actual Archives of General Psychiatry study, from which this "1 in 5 Young Adults Has A Personlaity Disorder" news article is based,  the one--

Results  Almost half of college-aged individuals had a psychiatric disorder in the past year. The overall rate of psychiatric disorders was not different between college-attending individuals and their non-college-attending peers. The unadjusted risk of alcohol use disorders was significantly greater for college students than for their non-college-attending peers (odds ratio = 1.25) although not after adjusting for background sociodemographic characteristics. College students were significantly less likely (unadjusted and adjusted) to have a diagnosis of drug use disorder or nicotine dependence... than their non-college-attending peers. Bipolar disorder was less common in individuals attending college. College students were significantly less likely to receive past-year treatment for alcohol or drug use disorders than their non-college-attending peers.

--in which the finding of personality disorder does not even merit a mention in the abstract, so insignificant was that finding to the study itself--

all that means an agenda lurking.  You're not being given information, you're being given a worldview.  Eat it.


But let's take it at face value-- 1 in 5 kids 18-21 have a personality disorder.

What's surprising about that is how low it is, considering that many of these "disorders" are normal developmental stages.  When your 17 year old stays out past midnight, doesn't call, and then has the nerve to get mad at you for being mad at him-- that may be a discipline problem, but it's not a personality disorder.  I get that you're angry, I'm with you, but the solution isn't a psychiatrist.  The solution is not to consider that the problem is pathological, but that it is the default behavior that you must help them change.

Given the move towards infantilizing kids, that personality "disorders" would linger a little past adolescence-- into the sheltered Quad of Prolonged Adolescence U-- is not surprising.  What matters is not the availability of treatment, but whether these "disorders" can be expected to resolve themselves naturally as they age, find relationships, jobs, a stable identity.  Of course they can.  Or, more to the point: the bias should be that things are normal, not pathological.


But let's take a philosophical approach.  What does having a personality disorder even mean?  Can an inanimate object have a personality?  Apparently, yes.

In Human Nature: 40 people looked at pictures of cars and had to rate them against 19 traits (gender, maturity, submissiveness, etc.) The subjects consistently identified the same traits among the cars. 

"The study confirmed with some rigor what many people have already felt -- that cars seem to have consistent personality traits associated with them"

Obviously, cars don't have personalities, they are inanimate.  We attribute personalities to them.  No one would dispute this.  You might say the cars are designed to elicit certain feelings towards them-- fine-- but the cars themselves do not possess character attributes, they only possess appearances.

Yet in the study, the different subjects-- these are not all genetic clones, they've had different lives and experiences-- still rated the cars as having the same attributes.  What does it mean, really mean, when everyone thinks a car is aggressive, or submissive, when it isn't?  Think about that, long and hard.

We have an internal personality constructs which are completely invalid.  That they are hard wired into us, that so many other things are hard wired into us, doesn't make them less invalid.  An optical illusion is still an illusion.  These are cars.  Metal.  Your mind is tricking you, on purpose.  What you saw was wrong.

When you look into the abyss, the abyss looks also into you.


Surely I'm not saying personality disorders don't exist? Or that people don't have personalities?  If you were the Last Man On Earth, you'd still have a personality, right?

Even when you're alone, there's still "another person" present-- that internal dialogue you have with yourself, as another person.  You're never truly alone, even if  sometimes you don't like the company.  And I haven't even brought up one's interaction with God, as epistemiologically unfashionable as that is to talk about nowadays.

All that aside, personality is the interplay between your physical/biological/innate/whatever traits and your life as you experience it (books and movies count); the interaction between you and Others.  As such, it can be drastically altered, both by you and by other people, by time and environment, on purpose and not on purpose.


The consistency in the ratings of personality was, the researchers found, related to the appearance of the car; how far apart the eye/headlights were, etc.  In other words, the cars were judged by how they look.  "What's inside" the car, how it behaved, wasn't even relevant.

If this is true, how hard will it be for a person to overcome the prejudice based on appearance?  How much will they have to overcompensate to make up for it?  How strongly will you believe the person is a smart/mature/aggressive/etc, no matter what he actually does?  Keep in mind these subjects know what a car is, they know that the appearance of a car does not reflect how it performs, they know cars don't have personalities, and still they give it certain attributes.  How different will that be in people?

How easy will it be to resist simply conforming to the way you are viewed?  How hard will it be for one person to say NO to the world, and self-identify? To resist the negative and the positive perceptions of others, in favor of who he decides he wants to be?

Pretty darn near impossible, I should think.


Back to the NYT.   I'm sure I'll be disputed, but hear me out:  we're entering the age of Keynesian Psychiatry, and the NYT can't contain its ejaculate.

It's an era where "free will" and the normal checks and balances of society and superego are considered ineffective.  No one can be expected to resist the id, and we need our parents to help keep us in control, or bail us out, send us money, when we need it.

We have massive bailouts, where the solution to 30 years of prior deficit spending is-- sit down-- more deficit spending; when the solution to overconsumption and undersaving is-- even more consumption and less saving.  Similarly, 30 years of maladaptive behaviors will be treated with-- different maladaptive behaviors.

It's not profits and growth, it's "fiscal stimulus" and "infrastructure development"-- in psychiatry this means less focus on treatment, less focus on "remission," and increased spending on detection, prevention, education-- you're already sick, you just don't know it.  This dovetails nicely with the (temporary) death of Big Pharma, who won't be generating any new treatments any time soon.  And if it's not obvious why early detection and education is bad: you don't get to decide what kind of detection or what kind of education.  Psychiatry does.

So too will there be increased "services" for the "mentally ill"-- redefined as anyone at all who wants the benefits-- even if these services weaken society in the long run.  Both are Ponzi schemes built to fix prior, failing Ponzi schemes.  They'll fail,  just in time for our kids to get drafted.

Just as you see a move towards more government regulation and control, so will you see psychiatry mirror this.  Laws will be written and revised, focusing less on punishment while simultaneously emphasizing surveillance.  For example: "taking cocaine is a disease, it shouldn't be punished, it should be treated.  So let's have mandatory drug testing for everyone 14 and older, you know, for early intervention."

Psychiatry as an arm of social policy means we have accepted society's new mantra: please save me from myself.



Re: Cars don't have persona... (Below threshold)

December 9, 2008 12:55 AM | Posted by Lexi: | Reply

Re: Cars don't have personalities. They used to say the same things about cats and dogs. Ba-dum-dum.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
... they know car... (Below threshold)

December 9, 2008 6:27 AM | Posted by SusanC: | Reply

... they know cars don't have personalities, and still they give it certain attributes. How different will that be in people?

I basically agree with what you're saying in this article, but to play Devil's Advocate for a moment: We expect that most people's Theory of Mind abilities will work better when applied to other people than when they are applied to cars. Theory of Mind has evolved over a very long time (thousands of generations?) to enable us to intuit other people's intentions. For most of this evolutionary period, there were no cars, and hence no natural selection in favour of a Theory of Mind that works when applied to cars.

Worse yet, cars are designed (by humans) to deliberately exploit our weaknesses. There are designed to look attractive to potential customers, to make customers want to buy them.

There's a connection to the "Psychopaths are charming" thread too. While we're evolving better means of predicting other people's intentions, we're also evolving better means of deception, of hiding our own intentions from others.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Thank you for sharing your ... (Below threshold)

December 9, 2008 6:50 AM | Posted by Maria: | Reply

Thank you for sharing your thoughts about this article.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Brilliant. The pic... (Below threshold)

December 9, 2008 10:39 AM | Posted by demodenise: | Reply


The picture that you paint of the future--the place where society (and psychiatry) seems to be heading at mach 3--is really hideous.

I want to be able to do something about it--am obligated to do something about it because I know it's happening--but I have no idea where to start or what would actually make an impact.

Teaching isn't about education anymore; therapy and medicine aren't about healing anymore.

Or the more terrifying thought--what if they never were--where does that leave us?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
This is, really, the lament... (Below threshold)

December 9, 2008 11:10 AM | Posted, in reply to demodenise's comment, by xon: | Reply

This is, really, the lament of the age. The answer to that question will write the history of the first third of the century (which might end up being the epitaph of the past four. . .)

There is a societal 'rubber-band' that is being stretched, and stretched. As soon as your question is answered, it will release; but nobody knows what will happen.

The irony of this all is that there are many, many people who try to come up with and implement answers. The problem is that they work in places like Wall Street, Detroit, and Hollywood; and also Tampa, Colorado Springs, and Fort Bragg.

As they say, "It's never the question that is inappropriate. . ."

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
FLAG thrown. "Piling on..."... (Below threshold)

December 9, 2008 11:18 AM | Posted by Jack Coupal: | Reply

FLAG thrown. "Piling on..." "DEfense..."

The NYT is mortgaging its fancy schmancy new Manhattan building to keep publishing, and you have unfavorable comments about the quality of its reporting.

When we Conservatives criticized the NYT for the last 50 years for the quality of its reporting, we were told by the NYT that we were paranoid and guilty, not necessarily in that order.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I doubt teaching survived a... (Below threshold)

December 9, 2008 11:54 AM | Posted by Fargo: | Reply

I doubt teaching survived as being "about education" any longer than working an assembly line survived as being "about building a car", or journalism as being "about the truth".

Sure, if asked, most people would probably give you some reason that roughly equates to that, but outside of a few truly exceptional individuals, it either is, or shortly will be, just a job. A job that I can only imagine will slowly cover you in a fine abrasive as the tumblers spool up to speed.

Nearly everything, in my experience, comes down to an authority figure showing you a desired value, then you labor to make that happen for some reward. If it's something you really get into, great, you're learning something/building a cool machine/digging open the vaults of knowledge. If you show up, think "huh, this is ok I guess", then work for a decade churning out whatever that expected value is, you succumb to inertia and stick with it because it's "all you know". You become a mouse hitting a button to get a food pellet. Even if someone brings you proof that the button is crushing other mice in a different cage, well, that doesn't change that you're hungry right now, and nobody can force you to try to change yourself, to become another kind of mouse that might break free of the situation.

So, we end up with people, at every level of every organization, that are there because they couldn't be bothered to find something they really enjoyed, or felt that learning was somehow hard, and churn out whatever form they think someone loading the food bin wants to see, while not really giving a lot of thought to the content.

The flip side, of course, are the zealots. The mouse that's pounding that button like a viking would a coastal wench. Why? Who the hell knows. For some reason these people have a CAUSE, and you might think they really like what they do, that this is the problem with enjoying your work too much. I don't think so, I think they're just looking for whatever outlet works, and don't care anymore about the actual work than the wage slave. Instead of a wage, their reward is exhilaration at drawing an audience.

I... must apologize for writing such a long assed comment. Perhaps I should start drinking coffee in the mornings again, monkey be damned. At this point I only hope some of what I said was relevant.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
I don't know a submissive c... (Below threshold)

December 9, 2008 12:37 PM | Posted by La BellaDonna: | Reply

I don't know a submissive car is one that ... what, starts BEFORE you turn the key? I'd say that was preposterous, but I have definitely experienced moments of aggressive non-cooperation from machinery and electronic devices, so what do I know.

However, Lexi, I will take issue with your assertion: in my experience, cats do TOO have personalities! My dog experience is virtually non-existent, so I'll let the dog-familiar respond to that, but I could be the Jane Goodall of the Urban Domestic Shorthair: Domestic and Feral Varieties. I can assure you, after more than three decades of close observation, the little devils do have personalities. They are not cars. They aren't human beings - but they aren't cars, either. Or were you quoting a no-longer-fashionable scientific view? I could certainly believe you were doing THAT! Okay, I'm going with the latter ... pontificating pundits don't usually include rimshots, in my experience.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
"1 in 5 Young Adults Has A ... (Below threshold)

December 9, 2008 1:45 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

"1 in 5 Young Adults Has A Personlaity Disorder"

This is an intriguing typo.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The car study showed what h... (Below threshold)

December 9, 2008 3:16 PM | Posted by Per Jørgensen: | Reply

The car study showed what happened when test subjects were asked to describe a car in a picture using a pre-defined list of adjectives referring to human traits: The described its appearance in terms of human traits.

Doesn't follow any of the subjects weren't perfectly aware that's all they were doing. The consistency in their responses only confirms to me something I already knew: Analogies to human characteristics are very effective and useful shorthand to describing and discussing something as abstract as design, because people tend to make very similar associations. Words like "aggressive" and "feminine" communicate the same abstract concept much more predictably than, say, "modern" or "busy."

All I see in the car study, then, is 40 people using language to communicate pretty effectively their perception of the appearance of a thing. (If they were to have described the car as a whole, they wouldn't have been given a picture but a test drive.) There's nothing there indicating to me a general, societal breakdown in people's ability to distinguish appearance from the thing itself, imperfect though it always has been.

Nor does it follow from the NYT article + the car study that psychiatrists are imposing a moral relativist regime in this country. All I see in that article is a newspaper throwing out cheap buy-this-paper-or-[fill-in-the-blank]-gets-it bait to a jittery and gullible sub-section of the reading public whose appetite for alarmist health-care "studies" is insatiable. Hey, they NYT has to pay its bills, too. That doesn't mean the entire publication is a scam.

Aren't you being a tad alarmist here yourself, doctor?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Further to the cars...... (Below threshold)

December 9, 2008 3:26 PM | Posted by SusanC: | Reply

Further to the cars...

Most people can play games with dolls where you have to imagine what mental state the doll would have, if it were a human being. This doesn't mean that they're fooled, and really think that dolls have mental states - it's just that they can answer the hypothetical question.

So, for example, we can do the Sally-Anne test with two dolls, and if the subject doesn't have a severe autistic condition and is more than about five years old, they can play the game where they imagine what mental state the dolls would have. Even though the dolls don't really have mental state, and are both being puppetted by Simon Baron-Cohen.

The question about cars might be being treated as this kind of hypothetical: what personality would the car have, if it were human. Doesn't mean we're fooled.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Also reply to SusanC and... (Below threshold)

December 9, 2008 6:01 PM | Posted, in reply to Per Jørgensen's comment, by Alone: | Reply

Also reply to SusanC and others:

Of course the subjects know those are cars, and are not "fooled." Of course they are simply putting human labels on cars that they don't _actually_ think accurately describe the car itself.

Yet still they apply the labels. The same labels. In other words, human being agree that certain appearances mean something, even though they don't, even though they _know_ they don't.

Do you think that, despite knowing these labels aren't really accurate for cars, the people don't respond differently to these cars?

This is essentially no different than saying, "guys with close et eyes are predatory" or "women with big hips are smarter than women with hourglass figures." Everyone knows these things aren't true-- yet I'd bet a lot of people act on these ideas anyway.

Sally-Anne test: exactly: the doll doesn't have personality, it's a reflection of the subject.

Back to Per and the NYT. The problem is the NYT isn't a blog, it's the newspaper of record of the United States. If it says college kids have mental disorders and need treatment, then it is now true. It both reflects, and shapes, public sentiment, culture. As such it has great responsibility to be honest-- FAILED-- and rigorous-- FAILED-- which isn't my issue here, actually; my issue is that the movement, as reflected by this article, is to say that the "average" is the ideal. Saying college kids have pathology isn't saying "we need to help them;" it is saying, "see? a lot goes wrong with being young. We can't just send these people out into the world, we need to shelter them." The NYT is saying, through psychiatry, that we need more nationalization.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Sometimes I feel like you'r... (Below threshold)

December 9, 2008 9:00 PM | Posted by Alexandru: | Reply

Sometimes I feel like you're paranoid... but then I finish reading up your post. This reminded me of the Clockwork Orange.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Yeah, I really miss the poi... (Below threshold)

December 10, 2008 6:39 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Yeah, I really miss the point about the cars. Subjects were given a page of checkboxes, shown a car and asked to respond accordingly. The traits could have been anything, fast, efficient, submissive, omnipotent. Ticking the box can tick boxes.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Sorry, wasn't paying attent... (Below threshold)

December 10, 2008 6:50 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Sorry, wasn't paying attention, but on the car/phrenology issue, aren't you describing first impressions? Asked to react to a car people will draw from their immediate associations unless they have more prior experience, of course they will react differently, but some would also discount their first impressions if more experience proved them wrong, or at least recognise a conflict even if they choose not to resolve it, guilty pleasures, knowing you know it's wrong.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
This thread is probably dea... (Below threshold)

January 20, 2009 11:13 AM | Posted, in reply to Alone's comment, by AnnJo: | Reply

This thread is probably dead, but I wonder if you're not reading more into the car study than is there.

According to the report I saw of this study, not quite one-third of the test subjects associated cars' appearances with human or animal faces. It's not clear from the reporting whether the attribution of personality traits was limited to that subset of the test subjects (13 of 40 people) or whether all subjects were forced to choose among traits. For the other 27 people, a forced choice where the option of "None of the above; it's a CAR for heaven's sake" was not available is pretty meaningless, or at most demonstrates that those people understand marketing strategies.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
"We have an internal person... (Below threshold)

February 5, 2009 8:38 AM | Posted by kaskade: | Reply

"We have an internal personality constructs which are completely invalid. That they are hard wired into us, that so many other things are hard wired into us, doesn't make them less invalid. An optical illusion is still an illusion. These are cars. Metal. Your mind is tricking you, on purpose. What you saw was wrong."

Yes! Have you read about the role of masculine and feminine faces in sexual attraction? When people view these faces, they make assumptions about the behavior of the individual and use it to classify aspects of their personality.

Feminine appearance in men leads women to rate them as better long-term mates - more trustworthy and nurturing. Meanwhile,

"Men with masculine faces, with features such as a square jaw, larger nose and smaller eyes, were classed as significantly more dominant, less faithful, worse parents and as having personalities that were less warm, compared to their ‘feminine’ counterparts, who had finer facial features with fuller lips, wide eyes and thinner, more curved eyebrows."

Oddly enough, more attractive women tend to prefer more masculine men, hypothesized as they're more likely to keep them around through their physical appearance. Masculine men, of course, are primarily preferred for short-term mating otherwise, with attraction toward them peaking during ovulation. The pill inhibits this effect - women on are less likely to be attracted to masculine men during ovulation.

But it's clear their appearance serves as proxy for personality, at least in some occasions. Some claim these traits of facial appearance correlate with the personality traits, but I know plenty of extreme counterexamples.

There's a study linking perceived facial dominance to military rank. They looked at a class out of (I believe) West Point. Perceived facial dominance was a better predictor of final rank than class standing. It would be interesting to determine whether this was due to an innate difference in personality or the way those men are treated. From my personal experience and incongruous appearance and personality, I suspect it's mostly the latter.

Great coverage of narcissism and psychopathy. I love your site - it queues up so much for me to read.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Forgot to add:It w... (Below threshold)

February 5, 2009 8:40 AM | Posted by kaskade: | Reply

Forgot to add:

It would be interesting to see if the cars could be classified in masculine/feminine terms, and from there abstractions about what triggers these associations could be made. When I have time I'll be sure to check it out.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
I am also agree with "Femin... (Below threshold)

March 2, 2011 3:04 AM | Posted by Cheap Used Cars: | Reply

I am also agree with "Feminine appearance in men leads women to rate them as better long-term mates - more trustworthy and nurturing."

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I also agree with "Feminine... (Below threshold)

March 2, 2011 3:05 AM | Posted by Andrew: | Reply

I also agree with "Feminine appearance in men leads women to rate them as better long-term mates - more trustworthy and nurturing."
Cheap Used Cars

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Great Information. Its Wond... (Below threshold)

July 31, 2013 2:31 PM | Posted by sexualeducation4u: | Reply

Great Information. Its Wonderful to know website like yours which shares awesome information with public which benefits them hugely.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I realize that your comment... (Below threshold)

November 7, 2013 4:01 AM | Posted, in reply to Fargo's comment, by David: | Reply

I realize that your comment was from 5 years ago... but you just summed up what scares the shit out of me with holding any of the jobs I've worked for any length of time. I can't commit because I always see flaws where I'm hurting someone else or myself. The prevailing wisdom contrary to that I should take my opportunities as they come and make the best of them... but what I'm scared of is getting trapped. It starts with no longer looking at the negative impacts of what you're doing... it allows you to be sane in a job, but it also takes those things off the radar (or you drink to deal with the stress of having those unresolved things on the radar like TLP). It allows you to never ever think about the impact you're having on the world, yourself, and the people around you; so you never do think about those things and you keep doing what you've always done.

It's like the scene in the Fight Club movie where Tyler Durden pours lye on the main character's hand (because at that point the two are treated as distinct and separate entities). He talks about sacrifice, about "space monkeys". Then later, you see the "space monkeys" being the mindless drones making soap, and working in Project Mayhem. But they're probably no better off than they were before. They traded one reality for another, but both realities treat them as irrelevant pawns void of substantial reason or morals. They're just "space monkeys".

I guess what I'm most afraid of is choosing wrong. It feels like there are so many pre-packaged narratives to choose from, and the vast majority seem to result in being a mindless drone of one form or another. I'm not looking to be special, I just can't believe that all there is, is to be a space monkey or to otherwise be a guy like Tyler Durden or the main character's boss directing space monkeys (as is implied, to their impending destruction).

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)